Thank you! Then why -e command line option is present when -se or gdb <exec-name> does the job. Is it to load the symbol file which we like to..?
Regards, Ajay >-----Original Message----- >From: Eli Zaretskii [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2010 1:36 AM >To: Michael Snyder >Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Paragi, Ajeykumar B; >[email protected] >Subject: Re: gdb command line option -e or -exec usage > >> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:10:08 -0800 >> From: Michael Snyder <[email protected]> >> CC: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "Paragi, Ajeykumar B" ><[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> >> Pedro Alves wrote: >> > On Friday 12 February 2010 18:45:01, Michael Snyder wrote: >> >> Paragi, Ajeykumar B wrote: >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> I have invoked gdb with '-e' command line option on an executable, >> >>> The gdb manual says '-e' is used to set the executable to run. >> >>> But I could not see the symbols read in by gdb when I use -e and >could >> >>> not insert breakpoints. >> >>> >> >>> What is the intent of having the command line option "-e" or "- >exec"? >> >> Hmmm, it does seem to be broken. >> > >> > It's not. `-e' is equivalent to "(gdb) exec-file". It doesn't read >> > its argument for symbols, only for executable to run, or for pure >> > memory contents. >> > >> >> You can get the same effect, though, by just leaving out the -e flag. >> >> >> >> % gdb my-executable >> > >> > That's equivalent to "(gdb) file", which is equivalent to >> > "gdb -e my-executable -s my-executable", or just "gdb -se my- >executable". >> > >> >> Right! Thanks, Pedro. > >Are we missing something on the manual regarding this?
